I don't remember the literal inerrancy of scripture being a part of either the Apostle's Creed or the Nicean Creed...Or the bible for that matter. And, being a practising Christian I do read the book on a regular basis.

Then why do you read it? How do you decide what is true and what is not if you do not believe the Bible is perfect? I personally serve a Savior who is powerful enough to save me from Hell and take me to Heaven when I die is certainly powerful enough to keep His Word pure! The Bible is inerrant! What does the Apostle's Creed or Nicean Creed have to do with the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures given to us by God Himself?

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psa 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Jhn 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

Jhn 19:35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Then why do you read it? How do you decide what is true and what is not if you do not believe the Bible is perfect? I personally serve a Savior who is powerful enough to save me from Hell and take me to Heaven when I die is certainly powerful enough to keep His Word pure! The Bible is inerrant! What does the Apostle's Creed or Nicean Creed have to do with the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures given to us by God Himself?

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psa 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Jhn 8:14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

Jhn 19:35 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

None of these support a doctrine of literal inerrancy. Inerrancy (which does not demand a literal reading of the bible) perhaps, but truth is not the same thing as fact, which is what literal inerrancy continually attempts to reduce the bible to.

I don't know, those Bible verses do tend towards the interpretation that the Bible is inherently perfect. Given, not all English translations of the Bible are equally well done, but if you go back to the original source in Greek or Hebrew and it says x, you have to believe that x is what is meant. 6 days for Creation and the 7th for rest is not a metaphor for whatever time span you feel like, for instance - the wording is quite specific.

On the other hand, I don't believe there's a Bible verse specifically prohibiting homosexuality, for instance, so if you take the Bible 100% literally and don't look further, you might assume that homosexuality is ok. In point of fact, however, Sodom (where the word sodomy comes from) was a town full of homosexuals, and it was considered so evil by God that it was destroyed by fire (volcanic eruption?) You do have to search a little for meaning when something has not been specifically stated one way or the other._________________Homeschool Articles - Events - Support Groups

I don't know, those Bible verses do tend towards the interpretation that the Bible is inherently perfect. Given, not all English translations of the Bible are equally well done, but if you go back to the original source in Greek or Hebrew and it says x, you have to believe that x is what is meant. 6 days for Creation and the 7th for rest is not a metaphor for whatever time span you feel like, for instance - the wording is quite specific.

I think the fact that the first Genesis creation story is directly followed by another one that contradicts it in many ways is good evidence for an ancient editor who wasn't driven by a very modern idea of historical fact.

I'm certainly not arguing that the days are metaphors for timespans. I think it's a lot more likely that the first creation story is a liturgical statment about the hebrew faith.

Quote:

On the other hand, I don't believe there's a Bible verse specifically prohibiting homosexuality, for instance, so if you take the Bible 100% literally and don't look further, you might assume that homosexuality is ok. In point of fact, however, Sodom (where the word sodomy comes from) was a town full of homosexuals, and it was considered so evil by God that it was destroyed by fire (volcanic eruption?) You do have to search a little for meaning when something has not been specifically stated one way or the other.

The sin in the Sodom and Gommorah story is the violation of hospitality. Lot's obligation is to provide hospitality to divine visitors and that's what the men of Sodom threaten with their demands.

The sin in the Sodom and Gommorah story is the violation of hospitality. Lot's obligation is to provide hospitality to divine visitors and that's what the men of Sodom threaten with their demands.

If that's it, then why was Gommorah destroyed? Just because it happened to be nearby? What about this...

And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

It's fairly obvious that Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed because they were evil, not because they didn't provide good hospitality to their divine visitors. The attempted molestation was just one example of that evil. This is the only instance of God personally destroying cities (outside of the Flood, of course)

Quote:
I don't remember the literal inerrancy of scripture being a part of either the Apostle's Creed or the Nicean Creed...Or the bible for that matter. And, being a practising Christian I do read the book on a regular basis.

So again, why do read it? If it isn't perfect, isn't fact, your god isn't powerful enough to preserve his word for you, then how can he save you?

As far as homosexuality,
Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.

Quote:
I don't remember the literal inerrancy of scripture being a part of either the Apostle's Creed or the Nicean Creed...Or the bible for that matter. And, being a practising Christian I do read the book on a regular basis.

So again, why do read it? If it isn't perfect, isn't fact, your god isn't powerful enough to preserve his word for you, then how can he save you?

As far as homosexuality,
Leviticus 18:22
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.

I read it to inform my faith and character. It might be interesting for you to check out religioustolerance.org where they have lots of info on alternate perspectives on the bible. I doubt you'll agree with a lot of it but it's often still interesting to explore.

As for Leviticus, scripture quotes from it are always troubling for me. If we are going to hold to Leviticus then there are many other things in there that should concern us at least as much as homosexuality. Do you prepare your sacrifices to the Lord in accordance with what's demanded in Leviticus?

If that's it, then why was Gommorah destroyed? Just because it happened to be nearby? What about this...

And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous;
I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

It's fairly obvious that Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed because they were evil, not because they didn't provide good hospitality to their divine visitors. The attempted molestation was just one example of that evil. This is the only instance of God personally destroying cities (outside of the Flood, of course)

Seems obvious to me, but I suppose I'm not likely to convince you, so we may as well agree to disagree.

I don't mind that. I think the differing interpretations are interesting to learn about. I will say that I don't think we understand how important a virtue hospitality was (and still is in the middle east). To violate it was was bad enough, to attempt to violate it when the divine is involved is pure wickedness. But, I don't think that was the only reason Sodom and Gommorah were destroyed. As you said, God tagged them as wicked before the event with lot. However, homosexuality wasn't mentioned either so I'm inclined to think their wickedness was something worse and more general. A complete abandonment of order, honour and, most important, law that would lead to the behaviour the men exhibited.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think the ancient hebrews or the OT, were neutral on the matter of sex between men, I just don't see the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah as all about that. The prime occupation and most of the OT and what gets societies destroyed (like pre-flood people) is rejecting obedience to God. I believe that's behind their 'wickedness'. Their destruction comes with their attempt to assault the angels.

The only instances in the Bible where a whole area gets destroyed is when the people are totally godless and depraved. That means that the people of Sodom were totally godless and depraved, and what they attempted to do was therefore also godless and depraved. And I don't think you can logically claim that homosexuality was ok, it was the townspeople attempting to molest angels (in disguise...) that was not - since the two items can't really be separated from one another.

I agree, we have strayed quite off topic here. It is afterall a science forum.

If you want to discuss theology though, I have to admit that I am an atheist. I used to be a religious person (Baptist) when I was younger. And, by the way, not all scientists are atheists, some are quite religious. I just happen to not be one of them. I have trouble believing in one creator when there are so many different religions in the world-past and present. They can't all be right, but each one claims to be the true faith. Even within Christianity, different denominations have vastly different beliefs and each one thinks that the other denominations are wrong and often times that they will burn in hell for it. Most, not all, people just believe in whatever their families believe in. They don't research the different denominations, let alone other religious beliefs, so how do they know that they are right?

I also have trouble believing in an egotistical god who will only let you into heaven if you believe that he/she/it exists. I might live more ethically and make more moral decisions than someone who believes in god, but lives an amoral existance, but I would be doomed to hell while the sinner is allowed into heaven. That doesn't sit right with me. I also don't think it is right that someone who choses the wrong faith would be doomed, especially since those who chose correctly usually didn't do so by conscious choice; they were only following the beliefs of their families. If such a god exists, then I choose not to follow him/her/it.

I also can't accept that a benevolent god would allow suffering, especially of children. I can't accept the "it's not for us to understand god's plan" attitude about such things.

I also can't accept the violence that surrounds true-believers of any faith. There has been and continues to be alot of killing of non-believers of that particular faith be it Christianity, Islam, or many other religions. Jews, homosexuals, and others were put to death in Nazi concentration camps. Muslims have gone on jihads. Homosexuals, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews, Protestants, Catholics, etc. have all been killed in backstreets or run out of the neighborhood/city/country. There is very little tolerance for those who have different beliefs.

Christians believe that humans are endowed with a special soul and were created in God's image, so they have a tendency to believe that the other life forms on this planet are there to be used/abused as humans see fit. By elevating humans above nature, they fail to see how they are a part of nature. Plants and animals don't have the same rights as humans. For a long time, people believed that animals didn't have emotions, even though it is clear that they do. Who cares if we treat animals humanely? Who cares if this development eradicates an owl or a liverwort?

Anyway, I'm quite willing to accept that I could be wrong and that there might be a god and a hell. I'm perfectly willing to accept that others believe differently than I do and that is their right. I just don't like it when others try to impose their beliefs on me and try to outlaw valid medical procedures, impose prayer in schools, advocate abstinence-only sex ed programs, cut funding to global health initiatives because some small part of it might include information about abortions, ban nude statues or other art forms, picket soldiers funerals because they happened to be gay, try to keep gays from marrying or adopting children or from teaching their children, try to push religious beliefs into science classrooms, etc. As you may notice, I am one of those annoying liberals!

Christians believe that humans are endowed with a special soul and were created in God's image, so they have a tendency to believe that the other life forms on this planet are there to be used/abused as humans see fit. By elevating humans above nature, they fail to see how they are a part of nature. Plants and animals don't have the same rights as humans. For a long time, people believed that animals didn't have emotions, even though it is clear that they do. Who cares if we treat animals humanely? Who cares if this development eradicates an owl or a liverwort?

Anyway, I'm quite willing to accept that I could be wrong and that there might be a god and a hell. I'm perfectly willing to accept that others believe differently than I do and that is their right. I just don't like it when others try to impose their beliefs on me and try to outlaw valid medical procedures, impose prayer in schools, advocate abstinence-only sex ed programs, cut funding to global health initiatives because some small part of it might include information about abortions, ban nude statues or other art forms, picket soldiers funerals because they happened to be gay, try to keep gays from marrying or adopting children or from teaching their children, try to push religious beliefs into science classrooms, etc. As you may notice, I am one of those annoying liberals!

I do feel that God created us special, however He also put us in dominion of the world and it's resources. This means that we are to take care of it. Not abuse it. Adam had the privilege to name all the animals on this earth.

WHen it comes to suffering on this earth, I truly believe that God is pained by all the suffering that is caused on this earth by other humans. However, before Adam and Eve sinned, there was no suffering, they are the ones that open up that "box". God doesn't stop it, not because He can't but because in order to stop it He would have to take away our free will. Where could He draw that line? Stop all the murders? what about the bullies? and the Liars? are we all guilty of things like this?

Personally I believe that there are a lot of Christians our there giving the rest of us a bad rap. I don't condemn others for there beliefs. I don't judge because that is not what God asks us to do. He asks us to love them, no matter what the sin. For we are all sinners, we all are guilty of hurting others and God.

WHen you say "Valid medical procedures" what are you referring to? If it is abortion I'm sorry but to me that is murder and it is abused in this country and used as contraception on a regular basis. If it is not then what are you referring to?

advocate abstinence-only sex ed programs, The only reason I would agree with this is because it is the only way to avoid pregnancy and disease. This is one of the main reason that my children will never attend a PS Health class. I suffered because I thought that sex was fine even if I wasn't married. I'm sorry bu in this generation when 10yo are having sex with 16yo abstinence needs to be taught more.

ban nude statues or other art forms, David is nude isn't he? I just don't like big Victoria secret billboards in the mall when I am walking through with my two young sons.

picket soldiers funerals because they happened to be gay, I would never do this and I know many Christians that find this appalling! My uncle was a gay soldier and died of AIDS, my cousin is gay and some of my good friends are Gay. Again this is not my job to judge others. Just love them.

try to keep gays from marrying or adopting children or from teaching their children, I don't believe that two women can do a fair job raising a boy. I feel sorry for the boys being raised my women only. Even single moms. They need to make sure that they have a lot of positive male influence in their lives. Men need to be near other men in order to be good men. This is shown in society all the time. Saying that, my good friends that are gay, have a daughter and son, and I do not judge them in that way. What I believe does not affect how much I care for them and their children. What I do, is make sure that they hang out with my boys and my husband when they can, just so that they can see some "normal" male behavior. They are perfectly capable of teaching their children, and are doing a great job of it, (they are HSers too)

try to push religious beliefs into science classrooms, All that I would like to see is both options available, people don't realize how one sided evolution is. They kick people out of scientific "society" if they don't believe in what they believe and agree with what they think is right. I'm sorry but that is wrong. Science is constantly changing and should change with new information. However, when you decided which information you want to include based on whether or not it agrees with your point of view, then you are not a scientists. I thin that students should have a chance to see ALL the information and not just what the evolutionists want you to see. Is that too much to ask?

Btw, I was raised by an evolutionist. He loves me but certainly doesn't agree with what I teach my children about science. In this situation I am the one looked down on. I live in an area where I am the minority. I live near Northampton MA, The gay capital of the US. Not exactly the easiest place to be a Christian.

I didn't mean to get on my soap box, I just wanted you to be clear on a few things. Christians, like everyone else, are not all the same.

ps, liberals that argue with great points are great minds, regardless of the views that they hold. _________________Phi 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

WHen it comes to suffering on this earth, I truly believe that God is pained by all the suffering that is caused on this earth by other humans. However, before Adam and Eve sinned, there was no suffering, they are the ones that open up that "box". God doesn't stop it, not because He can't but because in order to stop it He would have to take away our free will. Where could He draw that line? Stop all the murders? what about the bullies? and the Liars? are we all guilty of things like this?

I can accept that expanation, but what about famines, disease, earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. - the "acts of God"?

Quote:

Personally I believe that there are a lot of Christians our there giving the rest of us a bad rap. I don't condemn others for there beliefs. I don't judge because that is not what God asks us to do. He asks us to love them, no matter what the sin. For we are all sinners, we all are guilty of hurting others and God.

I whole heartedly agree that there are extremists in every religion that gives the faith a bad rap. We can't judge the faith on a few doctor-killers or suicide bombers.

Quote:

WHen you say "Valid medical procedures" what are you referring to? If it is abortion I'm sorry but to me that is murder and it is abused in this country and used as contraception on a regular basis. If it is not then what are you referring to?

The so called "partial birth abortion" is a valid medical procedure that is sometimes a better option for preserving the mother's health than other procedures. Also, it is usually performed only when there is a medical problem, not as a change of mind about having the baby. Laws banning this procedure don't include clauses allowing it to be performed when it is in the best interest of protecting the mother's health. Who do these laws protect? The fetus will be aborted by more tramatic means - disassembly in utero and subsequent extraction - that pose a greater risk to the mother because of religious beliefs.

I also can't see why anyone would force a woman to bear a child conceived of rape or incest. Ironically, the same people often advocate the death penalty for some types of criminals.

I also can't see the sense in forcing a young girl to have a child because of a lapse in judgment or a married woman to have another child because her husband wouldn't use or allow her to use birth control or because she thought she was beyond child-bearing years, but had an unintended pregnancy late in life.

Women are not incubators. History is filled with botched poisonings and back-alley abortions because of desparate girls and women who could not find safe sterile medical procedures. Have you seen "Cider House Rules"? One woman dies from a horrible infection resulting from a back-alley abortion. Another girl is not allowed to leave her incestrious father when she becomes pregnant. Luckily, the main character is there to help her out. The rules on the cider house wall tell the migrant workers that they can't do this or that, but we learn the lesson of the film - the rules are not written by those who must live by the rules. They aren't the ones breathing in the vinegar smell or trying to sleep in the stifling heat. The message of the story is that the rules are made by people who aren't in the situation that the rules cover - including abortion laws.

Quote:

advocate abstinence-only sex ed programs, The only reason I would agree with this is because it is the only way to avoid pregnancy and disease. This is one of the main reason that my children will never attend a PS Health class. I suffered because I thought that sex was fine even if I wasn't married. I'm sorry bu in this generation when 10yo are having sex with 16yo abstinence needs to be taught more.

Abstinence should be advocated, but eventually these kids are going to have sex. Even if they wait until after marriage, shouldn't they be educated about how to prevent having unwanted children? Shouldn't they know how their own bodies work? I teach college freshmen. Even after we cover human reproduction and contraception, many of them answer questions on exams that indicate that they don't know how their own bodies work. Some tell me that conception occurs in the vagina! They must think that the fertilized egg goes back up to the uterus (womb) in order to implant. Some think that the sex of the child is determined by the egg, instead of by whether it gets fertilized by an x-bearing or a y-bearing sperm. Also, I recently read in the newspaper about a study that shows that adolescents that sign pacts to wait until marriage to give up their virginity end up participating in unprotected oral or -CENSORED- sex that exposes them to STDs, but which protects their "virginity" as defined by not having vaginal sexual intercourse. Is that protecting chidren?

Quote:

ban nude statues or other art forms, David is nude isn't he? I just don't like big Victoria secret billboards in the mall when I am walking through with my two young sons.

I don't like the sexual content of commercials or billboards either, because it isn't easy to avoid exposure to them. However, I wouldn't personally consider that "art". I don't think it is right to ban sexual explicit movies or books though because one can choose not to look at it. Unless the content includes children (or adults posing as children), in which case, it exposes children to harm.

Quote:

try to push religious beliefs into science classrooms, All that I would like to see is both options available, people don't realize how one sided evolution is. They kick people out of scientific "society" if they don't believe in what they believe and agree with what they think is right. I'm sorry but that is wrong. Science is constantly changing and should change with new information. However, when you decided which information you want to include based on whether or not it agrees with your point of view, then you are not a scientists. I thin that students should have a chance to see ALL the information and not just what the evolutionists want you to see. Is that too much to ask?

But the problem is that ID (intelligent design) is not a scientific theory. It cannot be tested. Any negative results could be argued away by saying that a creator is just trying to fool us or that natural laws are not constant. Science mostly works by testing opposing hypotheses about how something works. Predictions are made as to what one would expect to observe if the hypothesis is correct. Experiments that provide the predicted data support a given hypothesis while disproving others. There aren't any data to support ID. In contrast, a scientific theory has lots of supporting data. If data arise that contradict the theory, then the theory is modified or abandoned. There are absolutely no scientific theories to present for students to chose between. Also, creationists seem to think that Christian beliefs about creation are the only "alternative" out there. What about the creation beliefs of other religions? Should those be presented in a science classroom, too? Absolutely not! All of these religious explanations about the origin of life should be discussed in a course on comparative religions or something. They are not scientific explanations, so they do not belong in a science classroom. Would you advocate teaching astrology in an astronomy classroom? That isn't a scientific theory either.

Quote:

was raised by an evolutionist. He loves me but certainly doesn't agree with what I teach my children about science. In this situation I am the one looked down on. I live in an area where I am the minority. I live near Northampton MA, The gay capital of the US. Not exactly the easiest place to be a Christian.

I didn't mean to get on my soap box, I just wanted you to be clear on a few things. Christians, like everyone else, are not all the same.

Like I said, I am perfectly happy to interact with persons of faith who don't insist on judging or bullying others.

Quote:

liberals that argue with great points are great minds, regardless of the views that they hold.

Anyone who approaches an argument with an open mind can be fun to debate with. It is people who who argue with closed minds that it is pointless to chat with. You aren't going to change their minds and they probably aren't going to change yours either. In fact, in college, I had a boyfriend who enjoyed debating evolution with a Jehovah's Witness. She had an open mind, so she was fun to debate with. However, it eventually became time for her to change routes. Her successor was no fun at all.

I whole heartedly agree that there are extremists in every religion that gives the faith a bad rap. We can't judge the faith on a few doctor-killers or suicide bombers.

Equating the two is hardly accurate, of course. There have been only a handful of abortionist-killers, who went after specific abortionists, while there have been hundreds of suicide bombers, whose object were just to kill as many random civilians as possible. The Bible doesn't support killing abortionists - at least so long as execution is against the law - while it's a bit hard to read the Muslim holy texts and come to a conclusion that it's not ok to kill non-Muslims. Moderate Muslims are in a minority pretty much everywhere except in the US.

Even the Old Testament doesn't say to make war on all non-Jews. It was certain nations that were especially evil (child sacrifice to idols, etc.) that were specifically chosen for destruction.

knobren wrote:

The so called "partial birth abortion" is a valid medical procedure that is sometimes a better option for preserving the mother's health than other procedures. Also, it is usually performed only when there is a medical problem, not as a change of mind about having the baby. Laws banning this procedure don't include clauses allowing it to be performed when it is in the best interest of protecting the mother's health. Who do these laws protect? The fetus will be aborted by more tramatic means - disassembly in utero and subsequent extraction - that pose a greater risk to the mother because of religious beliefs.

Actually, there is no evidence showing that partial birth abortions are more effective at preserving the mother's health, and even in the vanishingly few cases where they might be, it's still the mother's duty to save her baby if at all possible, just like it's the man's job to put the women and children in the lifeboats first (read the actual account of the Titanic).

And even if you assume that abortions for medical reasons are ok (they're not), the fact is that the vast majority of abortions are solely for the sake of convenience. Women who don't want to go to the trouble of taking care of a baby (it might mess up their career!), or who don't want to admit they were sleeping around, or so on.

knobren wrote:

I also can't see why anyone would force a woman to bear a child conceived of rape or incest. Ironically, the same people often advocate the death penalty for some types of criminals.

Why would you support giving the rapist maybe 5 or 10 years in jail, then execute the innocent baby? The rapist is the criminal.

knobren wrote:

I also can't see the sense in forcing a young girl to have a child because of a lapse in judgment or a married woman to have another child because her husband wouldn't use or allow her to use birth control or because she thought she was beyond child-bearing years, but had an unintended pregnancy late in life.

Why does the baby have to die because of a bad choice someone made? Liberals are big advocates of "choice", but not of responsibility. Abortion is largely about evading your choices.

knobren wrote:

Women are not incubators. History is filled with botched poisonings and back-alley abortions because of desparate girls and women who could not find safe sterile medical procedures. Have you seen "Cider House Rules"? One woman dies from a horrible infection resulting from a back-alley abortion. Another girl is not allowed to leave her incestrious father when she becomes pregnant. Luckily, the main character is there to help her out. The rules on the cider house wall tell the migrant workers that they can't do this or that, but we learn the lesson of the film - the rules are not written by those who must live by the rules. They aren't the ones breathing in the vinegar smell or trying to sleep in the stifling heat. The message of the story is that the rules are made by people who aren't in the situation that the rules cover - including abortion laws.

So, are you saying that you would support banning all abortions not involving rape, incest, or medical need? Liberals like to trot out impossible-sounding situations (the ol' lifeboat problem), then extrapolate from those to say that abortion is ok in all situations, but the real goal of Planned Parenthood is simply to eliminate as many babies as possible. In point of fact, the demographic that is most against abortion (the conservative middle class) is also the demographic that has the most babies, so it's hardly evading the rules.

Incidently, I notice you don't mention the long-term health problems related to abortion / birth control, such as cancer, infertility, depression, etc. It's a little inconvenient when you finally "choose" to have your one baby and discover you can't because your abortion sterilized you. Which choice is the important one?

knobren wrote:

Abstinence should be advocated, but eventually these kids are going to have sex. Even if they wait until after marriage, shouldn't they be educated about how to prevent having unwanted children? Shouldn't they know how their own bodies work? I teach college freshmen. Even after we cover human reproduction and contraception, many of them answer questions on exams that indicate that they don't know how their own bodies work. Some tell me that conception occurs in the vagina! They must think that the fertilized egg goes back up to the uterus (womb) in order to implant. Some think that the sex of the child is determined by the egg, instead of by whether it gets fertilized by an x-bearing or a y-bearing sperm. Also, I recently read in the newspaper about a study that shows that adolescents that sign pacts to wait until marriage to give up their virginity end up participating in unprotected oral or -CENSORED- sex that exposes them to STDs, but which protects their "virginity" as defined by not having vaginal sexual intercourse. Is that protecting chidren?

If you assume that kids are going to do something and then teach them how to do it safely, you may as well just tell them it's ok. "We realize that some of you juvies are likely to rob apartments in the future, but you might get hurt on those dark fire escapes. Here are some flashlights." Yeah, that'll stop them!

knobren wrote:

I don't like the sexual content of commercials or billboards either, because it isn't easy to avoid exposure to them. However, I wouldn't personally consider that "art". I don't think it is right to ban sexual explicit movies or books though because one can choose not to look at it. Unless the content includes children (or adults posing as children), in which case, it exposes children to harm.

As long as there aren't big advertisements outside the stores, and they aren't located near residential homes, I suppose that one can be conceded. The object is to keep the stuff away from children, and out of the sight of anyone who might be offended.

knobren wrote:

But the problem is that ID (intelligent design) is not a scientific theory. It cannot be tested. Any negative results could be argued away by saying that a creator is just trying to fool us or that natural laws are not constant. Science mostly works by testing opposing hypotheses about how something works. Predictions are made as to what one would expect to observe if the hypothesis is correct. Experiments that provide the predicted data support a given hypothesis while disproving others. There aren't any data to support ID. In contrast, a scientific theory has lots of supporting data. If data arise that contradict the theory, then the theory is modified or abandoned. There are absolutely no scientific theories to present for students to chose between. Also, creationists seem to think that Christian beliefs about creation are the only "alternative" out there. What about the creation beliefs of other religions? Should those be presented in a science classroom, too? Absolutely not! All of these religious explanations about the origin of life should be discussed in a course on comparative religions or something. They are not scientific explanations, so they do not belong in a science classroom. Would you advocate teaching astrology in an astronomy classroom? That isn't a scientific theory either.

Creationists simply do their best to explain how the Bible is not contradicted by science, and if they can't figure something out, they just believe it until science advances to the point where they have a concrete explanation. The millions of years' worth of rock layers was a stumper until recently, for instance, but Christians knew there was an explanation somewhere - it just hadn't been figured out yet. Evolutionists are largely the same way, with the major difference being that they won't admit evolution is a religion.

knobren wrote:

Anyone who approaches an argument with an open mind can be fun to debate with. It is people who who argue with closed minds that it is pointless to chat with. You aren't going to change their minds and they probably aren't going to change yours either. In fact, in college, I had a boyfriend who enjoyed debating evolution with a Jehovah's Witness. She had an open mind, so she was fun to debate with. However, it eventually became time for her to change routes. Her successor was no fun at all.

Open minded = converting to your point of view, I suppose. My problem with (macro)evolution is simply that it can't be observed, reproduced, or tested for - that's why it needs a nebulous "billions of years" to supposedly happen - therefore it's speculation, not science. There's just as much evidence for aliens seeding the universe with life as there is for us having evolved by random chance._________________Homeschool Articles - Events - Support Groups

Last edited by Theodore on Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:50 am; edited 2 times in total

Thank you Theodore and knobren, This is fun, I don't always get a chance to debate anymore!

As far as science goes. this is a subject dear to my heart. Mostly because of my father. Creationists are scientists, and they truly do use science on a daily basis. They have faith in God, but evolutionists have faith in Evolution. Here is an example of evolutionists not telling the whole truth.

from www.icr.org regarding human footprints, found to be 3.5 million year old according to conventional testing.

"As far as the footprints go, her data are not questioned, but the interpretation of the data illustrates the lengths to which evolutionists will go to avoid questioning man's supposedly evolutionary ancestry.

The prints themselves are quite human-like "indistinguishable from those of modem humans" (Anderson, New Scientist 98:373, 1983). Following extensive research it was concluded that the footprints "resemble those of habitually unshod modem humans.... (If the) footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our genus" (Tuttle, Natural History March 1990).

Because of the dates, the prints have been assigned to Australopithecus afarensis, i.e., Lucy's kind. But is this valid? Lucy was essentially a chimp. Even discoverer Donald Johansson only claims that Lucy was a chimp that walked somewhat more erect than other chimps. The Australopithecus foot was an ape's foot, with an opposing thumb, and long curved toes just right for climbing in trees, but most unlike a human's foot. According to researcher Dr. Charles Oxnard in a 1996 interview: "If you examine (Australopithecus foot bones) more closely, and especially if you examine it using the computer multivariate statistical analysis that allows you to assess parts that the eye doesn't easily see, it turns out that big toe was divergent."

Why do evolutionists continue to maintain that the chimp-like Lucy made the Laetoli human-like footprints, and that both represent our ancestors? Well, it's certainly not for scientific reasons. The drive to prove man's animal ancestry is great, for it frees one from accountability to a creator-God."

There are many proofs like this that secular science has ignored. Trees standing in layers of strata, whale fossilized in millions of years of strata, and human prints next to dinosaur prints. Why can't children in High school see the evidence of this debate. As far as other religions being shown as well, most religions start with Genesis and God creating the world in seven days, Jewish, Muslims, Christians,,, I know theres more but I'm not a religion major.

Knobren, I also wanted to ask you if you knew that one of the number one damaging effects of abortion in psychological not physical. Many anti-abortion projects are turning into abortion counseling. I don't know of any non-religious companies doing this.

As far as contradiction goes, How can someone be okay with killing an innocent child, but want to keep a criminal, murderer rapist alive? I don't think we should kill anyone. God is the judge, as I've said before. If we believe in survival of the fittest than why do we support gays and lesbians, they wouldn't survive in a natural world with out science to help them conceive, and we wouldn't help those people with debilitating genetic diseases. Just some contradictions I've seen that I can't seem to get an answer for.

Thank you again for this debating opportunity. I haven't had this much fun since high School. _________________Phi 4:13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.